[Halifax] Nova Centre | 65-58-58 m | 16-15-14 fl | Completed

[hokus83]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

Alright folks - it would be super if you put all that "Waye is anti development" stuff behind you and go comment about this project on the Herald website...


http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1203133-convention-centre-debate-must-move-on

I don't think you recognize what anti development means at all, sure you approve the status quo for development in downtown that any city should have but you fight pretty darn hard against anything in ritzee areas in the south end,
the Artillery Place, Coburg & Seymore, Spirit Place (Saint John United) should have gone through and fighted tooth and nail for that one more than anything, I know I'm missing one or two others that you are publicly against in the low population density areas of the south end, (edit) the WELLINGTON STREET place you're against that one as well. I'm not sure where you stand on CARLTON TERRACE, but your Track record since you've been in office is no no no no for every proposal in the south end, its very detrimental to the community in the long run.

You don't have a balanced approach to these areas, you're nope nope nope for every residential area in the south and look how pro development I am for the downtown core which you would be publicly lynched if you were against. You're ok in some areas Waye but your pretty way off base and anti development in your own way.

[Waye Mason]

Originally Posted by hokus83

I don't think you recognize what anti development means at all, sure you approve the status quo for development in downtown that any city should have but you fight pretty darn hard against anything in ritzee areas in the south end,
the Artillery Place, Coburg & Seymore, Spirit Place (Saint John United) should have gone through and fighted tooth and nail for that one more than anything, I know I'm missing one or two others that you are publicly against in the low population density areas of the south end, (edit) the WELLINGTON STREET place you're against that one as well. I'm not sure where you stand on CARLTON TERRACE, but your Track record since you've been in office is no no no no for every proposal in the south end, its very detrimental to the community in the long run.

You don't have a balanced approach to these areas, you're nope nope nope for every residential area in the south and look how pro development I am for the downtown core which you would be publicly lynched if you were against. Your ok in some areas Waye but your pretty way off base and anti development in your own way.

Fine fine sure, can you go comment about how right I am in this instance then?

[hokus83]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

Fine fine sure, can you go comment about how right I am in this instance then?

No way, you're against all community building developments in your riding, I can't be on your side for a big business development in the media even if it is beneficial

[ILoveHalifax]

I could not care if you voted for every development from here on in, Waye, you have been far too negative for far too long. Hopefully we can get somebody who is pro-development next time.

[Keith P.]

You admit you were against this development right up to the time the contract was signed. You don't actually say if you still against it or not. What you ARE against, apparently, is trying to now break the signed contract. That has nothing to do with whether or not you are anti-development. I guess we can award you a few points for not aligning yourself with the desperate Save the View of the Exxon Tank Farm nutbars, but that's about all.

[Waye Mason]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

You admit you were against this development right up to the time the contract was signed. You don't actually say if you still against it or not. What you ARE against, apparently, is trying to now break the signed contract. That has nothing to do with whether or not you are anti-development. I guess we can award you a few points for not aligning yourself with the desperate Save the View of the Exxon Tank Farm nutbars, but that's about all.

You are supposed to be a right winger - my main complaint has always been the P3 model. You suddenly like P3? They never work. It should have been built by the govt on the Sands of Salter site. But that ship has sailed! The contract is signed, lets get on with it!

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

I could not care if you voted for every development from here on in, Waye, you have been far too negative for far too long. Hopefully we can get somebody who is pro-development next time.

Originally Posted by hokus83

No way, you're against all community building developments in your riding, I can't be on your side for a big business development in the media even if it is beneficial

Hah! Supported Vernon/Quinpool, for example. Supported all those 6-7 stories on Isleville and Bilby and whatnot. Supported Southport on Barrington. Support Fenwick freaking towers. Voted for 150, against 6.

[mcmcclassic]

Can we please look past the pissing contest that is Councillor Mason's opinions on other developments in the city? He wrote a solid article here and was simply looking at the convention centre and the requirements laid out by the government a few years ago.

I for one am pro-development, but people like Waye have to have a more moderate opinion on these things, as he represents a lot of people's opinions. I haven't agreed with all of his decisions, but I have with many others and that's why I voted for him in the election.

For those against Mason here - what was his predecessor (Sue Uteck) like? Anti everything.

[someone123]

I agree. Regardless of the debate over who is or isn't pro-development, the article did a good job of framing the debate and focusing on the facts of the situation.

Many people are seriously uninformed about the convention centre and are not contributing usefully to the debate. For a couple of years now it has been about how to get the best development possible, not about the question of whether or not there will be a new convention centre.

[hokus83]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

You are supposed to be a right winger - my main complaint has always been the P3 model. You suddenly like P3? They never work. It should have been built by the govt on the Sands of Salter site. But that ship has sailed! The contract is signed, lets get on with it!





Hah! Supported Vernon/Quinpool, for example. Supported all those 6-7 stories on Isleville and Bilby and whatnot. Supported Southport on Barrington. Support Fenwick freaking towers. Voted for 150, against 6.

And all 6 of those you voted against was in your south end ridding = poor representation

Vernon/Quinpool - equivalent of a downtown development its essentially part of the city core, Isleville and Bilby - north end your point is invalid, north end redevelopments are very trendy right now. Southport is in a vacant parking the size of gorges island almost, you don''t get brownie points for approving anything there with thinking what a pro development guy you are, its also luxury condos. Fenwick towns is just an expansion your point is also invalid.

The truth is ever since you've been in office you're 90% anit development of everything in the south end, if you don't see the benefit of places like the Spirit Place, Coburg & Seymore, Artillery Place, Wellington, you're a failure in your riding.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by hokus83

And all 6 of those you voted against was in your south end ridding = poor representation

Vernon/Quinpool - equivalent of a downtown development its essentially part of the city core, Isleville and Bilby - north end your point is invalid, north end redevelopments are very trendy right now. Southport is in a vacant parking the size of gorges island almost, you don''t get brownie points for approving anything there with thinking what a pro development guy you are, its also luxury condos. Fenwick towns is just an expansion your point is also invalid.

The truth is ever since you've been in office you're 90% anit development of everything in the south end, if you don't see the benefit of places like the Spirit Place, Coburg & Seymore, Artillery Place, Wellington, you're a failure in your riding.

So put your name on the ballot, convince a large group of people to work a campaign for you, put your regular life on hold for at least 3 months, hustle people for money, prepare a coherent platform for all aspects of the city, walk around the streets begging every over 18 resident for their vote, and see how you make out.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

You are supposed to be a right winger - my main complaint has always been the P3 model. You suddenly like P3? They never work. It should have been built by the govt on the Sands of Salter site. But that ship has sailed! The contract is signed, lets get on with it!

P3s are great! Th eproblem is that few individuals in govt know how to write a good contract and so they are full of loopholes and end up giving away the store. Govt should not be running very much of anything and it should be building virtually nothing. The problem isn't P3s, its a lack of contracting skill.

If it is any consolation, Councillor, you are the best of the 3 peninsular council members. While some might say that is like being the tallest dwarf, you are miles ahead of the loopy one to the north of you, and more consistent than the one to the west of you who is totally unpredictable and erratic. At least you seem to put in the work, and though your philosophy is often on the wrong side of the issues, I tip my hat to you for the effort you make.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

Fine fine sure, can you go comment about how right I am in this instance then?

I've posted. Waiting on Herald comment approval.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

P3s are great! Th eproblem is that few individuals in govt know how to write a good contract and so they are full of loopholes and end up giving away the store. Govt should not be running very much of anything and it should be building virtually nothing. The problem isn't P3s, its a lack of contracting skill.

If it is any consolation, Councillor, you are the best of the 3 peninsular council members. While some might say that is like being the tallest dwarf, you are miles ahead of the loopy one to the north of you, and more consistent than the one to the west of you who is totally unpredictable and erratic. At least you seem to put in the work, and though your philosophy is often on the wrong side of the issues, I tip my hat to you for the effort you make.

My God, Keith and Waye making peace, if only on a single issue.

*anything* is possible on SSP. The skies, truly, are the limits.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

This is not actually a fact. It is something Mr. Epstein and Surette are saying, but right now if the space comes back at less than 120,000 sf that would violate the contract. Halifax's funding is contingent on meeting that mark.

That is reassuring to know. Once the Nova Centre is complete, I assume that HRM/provincial officials will inspect the space and if the square footage of rentable convention space isn't met then Rank will have to free up more space in their retail/office configuration?

I can see that being a politician is a tough job since you will get attacked by both sides of any issue. However, I guess politicians know what they are getting into and make the choice to run anyway.

[counterfactual]

The tired, pathetic, Heritage Lobby just commissioned a lame, tired, badly worded poll (written about in today's Herald) that basically played on anti-Halifax sentiment through out the province, by asking whether the money for the Convention Centre is better spent on the Centre or "roads, bridges, and transportation" specifically "through out the province".

Pretty disgusting for them to word a poll in a way that not only stokes anti-Halifax sentiment to twist results, but plays plays off peoples' self-interest by essentially asking in the key question in the poll: "WOULD YOU PREFER MILLIONS OF DOLLARS SPENT IN A RICH CITY FAR AWAY? OR ON BRIDGES AND ROADS IN YOUR TOWN?"

Shockingly, a majority of respondents preferred money spent on their stuff.

They call this a "scientific" poll.

[Keith P.]

One wonders where the money for the polling came from.

Scary that Larry Haiven is involved with this bunch - another teaching prof at a local university against development, just like Ruffman. The scary thing with Haiven is that he is at the business school at SMU. An anti-business business prof!

[hokus83]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

The tired, pathetic, Heritage Lobby just commissioned a lame, tired, badly worded poll (written about in today's Herald) that basically played on anti-Halifax sentiment through out the province, by asking whether the money for the Convention Centre is better spent on the Centre or "roads, bridges, and transportation" specifically "through out the province".

Pretty disgusting for them to word a poll in a way that not only stokes anti-Halifax sentiment to twist results, but plays plays off peoples' self-interest by essentially asking in the key question in the poll: "WOULD YOU PREFER MILLIONS OF DOLLARS SPENT IN A RICH CITY FAR AWAY? OR ON BRIDGES AND ROADS IN YOUR TOWN?"

Shockingly, a majority of respondents preferred money spent on their stuff.

They call this a "scientific" poll.

They probably only polled the few wackjobs on their email list

[coolmillion]

I think the convention centre debate is very complex and has been reduced to the opposition of heritage/aesthetics and economic development. I am not opposed to the idea of a new convention centre but I am not fully in support of the execution of the Nova Centre, in particular the way the decision-making and planning components have proceeded, and in particular the location and emerging design details. For instance, I think that closing Grafton Street to traffic and covering it is a terrible idea - bad planning, basically impossible to execute well. I can't understand why the community consultations insisted that putting the ballroom above ground would be a good idea. Instead of a day-lit street, the public will now have a covered street, likely dead, and a ballroom (with windows!) that most will never step foot inside. Brilliant.
It would be interesting to go back a few years and trace the transfer of the land the Midtown Tavern folks attempted to develop to Rank and then the selection of this site for the convention centre.
I have said this many times (perhaps not here) but it would have made far more sense to put a convention centre on the waterfront which is already a tourism-focused area with large empty lots. Vancouver provides a perfect model for this and Seattle shows how what we're doing, from a planning point of view, is shitty.
I think it's a shame that opposition to the convention centre is framed by the idea of "save the view". For me it's more an issue of "save the street". That block of Grafton Street is nothing special but it's treatment is symbolic of a disregard for planning rules developed through important historical precedents. By-laws prevent the consolidation of downtown blocks because we did that to create Scotia Square in the 60s and it was a disaster. Also, symbolically, streets in general are vital to cities as public spaces.
Anyway, I agree that it's unlikely the plans will change. I think, however, that we should maintain a discussion that goes beyond heritage versus development and considers whether this is good design, good planning, and the proper use of public funds, if only to learn from this experience should it prove to not be a success.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by coolmillion

I think the convention centre debate is very complex and has been reduced to the opposition of heritage/aesthetics and economic development. I am not opposed to the idea of a new convention centre but I am not fully in support of the execution of the Nova Centre, in particular the way the decision-making and planning components have proceeded, and in particular the location and emerging design details. For instance, I think that closing Grafton Street to traffic and covering it is a terrible idea - bad planning, basically impossible to execute well. I can't understand why the community consultations insisted that putting the ballroom above ground would be a good idea. Instead of a day-lit street, the public will now have a covered street, likely dead, and a ballroom (with windows!) that most will never step foot inside. Brilliant.
It would be interesting to go back a few years and trace the transfer of the land the Midtown Tavern folks attempted to develop to Rank and then the selection of this site for the convention centre.
I have said this many times (perhaps not here) but it would have made far more sense to put a convention centre on the waterfront which is already a tourism-focused area with large empty lots. Vancouver provides a perfect model for this and Seattle shows how what we're doing, from a planning point of view, is shitty.
I think it's a shame that opposition to the convention centre is framed by the idea of "save the view". For me it's more an issue of "save the street". That block of Grafton Street is nothing special but it's treatment is symbolic of a disregard for planning rules developed through important historical precedents. By-laws prevent the consolidation of downtown blocks because we did that to create Scotia Square in the 60s and it was a disaster. Also, symbolically, streets in general are vital to cities as public spaces.
Anyway, I agree that it's unlikely the plans will change. I think, however, that we should maintain a discussion that goes beyond heritage versus development and considers whether this is good design, good planning, and the proper use of public funds, if only to learn from this experience should it prove to not be a success.

Not that your points are invalid, but at this point, they're not relevant. We're going to have a Convention Center. Debate is over. Train has left the station. Cat out of the bag. Genie out of the bottle. Bullet has left the gun.

Done. Over. Kaput.

The only people still fighting this battle are the NIMBY STV / Heritage people. So, to the extent that people line up behind their re-litigating this decided issue, then it's entirely fair to frame those people as NIMBY Heritage supporters.

[someone123]

It's hard to say how it will turn out but I'm not so convinced that the block consolidation for the Nova Centre will turn out like Scotia Square did. Grafton might be closed to through traffic for cars but it carried almost zero vehicle traffic before construction started. In terms of pedestrian traffic, the Nova Centre design is much more open and permeable than Scotia Square. The footprint is also much smaller.

The analogy to Scotia Square kind of reminds me of the analogy sometimes made between the Maritime Centre and all highrises ever. A lot of the problems with the Maritime Centre are due to specific design decisions. They're not inherently tied to the building's height. In the same way, a lot of Scotia Square's problems have nothing to do with its location or footprint. If it had a department store anchor and storefronts along Barrington instead of concrete walls and vents people would probably be a lot happier about it. I actually kind of like the way it looks along Duke Street.

I don't think the Seattle convention centre proves that covering a street is bad in the general case since there are so many other factors at play, and I don't think it's a huge failure. The covered section of Pike Street is the closest to what Grafton will be like and it's OK. Some of the other parts are much worse but that is because the roads in that area are connected to I-5. It is much more of a Scotia Square/Cogswell type set up.